The opinion in support of the decision being entered
today was not written for publication and is not binding
precedent of the Board.
Paper No. 15
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_______________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
_______________
Ex parte RAJARAO JAMMY
and JACK A. MANDELMAN
______________
Appeal No. 2002-2225
Application 09/295,132
_______________
ON BRIEF
_______________
Before WARREN, KRATZ and POTEATE, Administrative Patent Judges.
WARREN, Administrative Patent Judge.
Decision on Appeal and Opinion
We have carefully considered the record in this appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134, including
the opposing views of the examiner, in the answer, and appellants, in the brief, and based on our
review, find that we cannot sustain the rejections of appealed claims 1 through 7, 18 and 19,1 all
of the claims in the application, under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Vuillermoz
et al. (Vuillermoz) in view of the knowledge in the prior art acknowledged by appellants in the
specification (page 1, lines 21-23).2
It is well settled that in order to establish a prima facie case of obviousness under
1 See the appendix to the brief and the amendment of April 5, 2001 (Paper No. 8).
2 Answer, pages 3-4.
- 1 -
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007